Comments about ‘In our opinion: Deferred maintenance costs for university buildings can balloon without proper planning’

As long as the U will spend $60 M on a law bldg. that should have been $45 M or
$130 M on a 200,000 SF USTAR bldg. that should have been at least 25% less they
have no one to blame but themselves. They really should tour the Granger High
School and see that buildings don't have to cost over $200 per square foot.

re: the Power, they have been acting like their own power plant
getting power at wholesale. Instead of charging retail and using the money for
maintenance, they were charging the same price and ignoring the difference,
expecting a bailout by the State that they have been lobbying for years.

They were to change the rates for the power so that after the initial
amount was paid it, the state wouldn't have to pay all $99 M for their
short sightedness. If they are back asking for the full amount, they are paying
their lobbyist and still not changing their actions.

I for one hope
the Utah Leg. says no. They have been told for several years that they
can't just build buildings without budgeting for maintenance.

This is a major problem at universities -- no one wants to put their name on
something "intangible" such as an endowment fund for electricity and
water consumption.

Another problem facing the universities is
salary compression where long-time faculty make tens of thousands of dollars
less than their newer colleagues simply because there's no money for
adequate merit pay and as those faculty leave, universities have to pay market
salaries to attract replacements. How do you get donors to want to fund an
endowment for merit pay or faculty retention?

Finally, with the fast
growth of online courses and the lack of need for university buildings,
universities are likely to have lots of empty buildings going forward. Maybe
they can rent these facilities out for weddings and parties.

Deferred maintenance has been our approach to all kinds of public infrastructure
for years. It's going to cost us dearly in the future. As long as we
can only see government as the enemy, and taxes as something that must be
reduced, we'll always prioritise maintenance down.

1. Our taxes are at completely unsustainable
levels. They need to be raised!

2. The wealth hoarding at the top
needs to end. In order for the rest of us to pay more in taxes we need to have
huge increases in pay and benefits. The wealthy can either voluntarily share
their wealth via pay raises and benefits increase or see it redistributed via
higher taxes, especially capital gains and estate taxes.

Our
universities, infrastructure, ability to defend ourselves against foreign
enemies, and our own standard of living is at risk.

It sure is good that wealthy people are generous to donate their money, but it
would be even better if they would donate to what needs donating to, rather than
just having their name on a building to be seen of men. Just a bit of let not
your left hand know what your right hand is doing, or vice versa. I know a lot
of people who are not rich, and cannot donate millions, but do donate their time
and talents, in a big way, and do not expect to see their name up in lights as a
result. Someday, God will reward them openly.

Re: ". . . higher education can get quickly enamored with shiny new capital
expenditures and lose sight of the far less glamorous requirement to maintain
existing infrastructure."

Or the even less glamorous requirement
-- and calling -- to educate students.

Big Ed has become nothing more
than a hustle. A scam that favors its new nobility -- "educators" and
administrators -- at the expense of the students they claim to serve, and
parents and taxpayers that foot the bill.